Fa. Mcalister et al., Randomised trials of secondary prevention programmes in coronary heart disease: systematic review, BR MED J, 323(7319), 2001, pp. 957-962
Citations number
32
Categorie Soggetti
General & Internal Medicine","Medical Research General Topics
Objective To determine whether multidisciplinary disease management program
mes for patients with coronary heart disease improve processes of care and
reduce morbidity and mortality.
Data sources Randomised clinical trials of disease management programmes in
patients with coronary heart disease were identified by searching Medline
1966-2000, Embase 1980-99, CINAHL 1982-99, SIGLE 1980-99, the Cochrane cont
rolled trial register, the Cochrane effective practice and organisation of
care study register, and bibliographies of published studies.
Data extraction Studies were selected and data were extracted independently
by two investigators, and summary risk ratios were calculated by using bot
h the random effects model anti the fixed effects model.
Data synthesis A total of 12 trials (9803 patients with coronary heart dise
ase) were identified. Disease management programmes had positive impacts on
processes of care. Patients randomised to these programmes were more likel
y to be prescribed efficacious drugs (risk ratio 2.14 (95% confidence inter
val 1.92 to 2.38) for lipid lowering drugs, 1.19 (1.07 to 1.32) for beta bl
ockers, and 1.07 (1.03 to 1.11) for antiplatelet agents). Five out of seven
trials evaluating risk factor profiles showed significantly greater improv
ements with these programmes in comparison With usual care (with effect siz
es in the moderate range). Summary risk ratios were 0.91 (0.79 to 1.04) for
all cause mortality, 0.94 (0.80 to 1.10) for recurrent myocardial infarcti
on, and 0.84 (0.76 to 0.94) for admission to hospital. Five of the eight tr
ials evaluating quality of life or functional status reported better outcom
es in the intervention arms. Only three of these trials reported the costs
of the intervention-the interventions were cost saving in two cases.
Conclusions Disease management programmes improve processes of care, reduce
admissions to hospital, and enhance duality of life or functional status i
n patients with coronary heart disease. The programmes' impact on survival
and recurrent infarctions, their cost effectiveness, and the optimal mix of
components remain uncertain.